U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that an Iran possessing a nuclear weapon could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, particularly over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
Rubio argued that if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, its ability to threaten retaliation would make it considerably more difficult for other countries to challenge Tehran's actions around the waterway.
“If Iran had a nuclear weapon, with which it could threaten its neighbors and the world, no one would be able to do anything about the Straits. They'd be able to control the Straits, charge a toll, and decide who got energy and who did not get energy,” Rubio said.
His comments reflect the broader position of the Trump administration that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is central to U.S. policy toward Tehran. Rubio has repeatedly linked the nuclear issue with the security of the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that a nuclear-armed Iran could use the threat of nuclear retaliation to deter outside powers from responding to its actions.
In May 2026, Rubio similarly argued that a nuclear-armed Iran could potentially close the strait and leave other countries with extremely limited options for responding. He described the possibility as one of the reasons Washington believes Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
The importance of the Strait of Hormuz makes the issue particularly significant for the global economy. The waterway, located between Iran and Oman, connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil flows through Hormuz averaged about 20.9 million barrels per day during the first half of 2025 — equivalent to roughly 20 percent of global petroleum liquids consumption and about one-quarter of global maritime oil trade.
The strait is also critical to global natural-gas supplies. EIA data show that approximately 11.4 billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas passed through Hormuz during the first half of 2025, representing more than 20 percent of global LNG trade. Qatar accounted for much of those LNG shipments, with Asian markets serving as major destinations.
That dependence explains why any prolonged disruption to the waterway can have consequences far beyond Iran and its immediate neighbors. Oil and gas prices can be affected by expectations of supply disruptions, while major energy-importing economies in Asia and elsewhere remain exposed to changes in shipping through the Gulf.
Rubio has also rejected the idea of Iran imposing a tolling system on commercial vessels using the strait. In another 2026 interview, he argued that the waterway is an international passage and said Washington would not support an Iranian system requiring ships to pay for passage.
Iranian officials, meanwhile, have made their own claims about the future security arrangements around Hormuz amid the broader confrontation. In July 2026, Iranian officials warned that the situation in the waterway would not necessarily return to its previous status and linked its security to wider questions surrounding Iran's security and the presence of foreign forces in the region.
Rubio's argument therefore goes beyond the immediate question of whether Iran could physically restrict shipping. His central concern is that nuclear weapons could provide Tehran with a powerful deterrent against international military action, potentially giving Iran greater freedom to exert pressure over one of the world's most important energy corridors.
For Washington, the issue is consequently tied to both nuclear proliferation and freedom of navigation. For the wider global economy, the Strait of Hormuz remains a critical energy chokepoint whose disruption could affect oil, gas, shipping costs and energy security across multiple regions.
The debate ultimately illustrates why Iran's nuclear ambitions and the security of the Strait of Hormuz have become closely connected issues in the wider geopolitical confrontation surrounding the Gulf.
0 Comments